Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 29 (ALL)

Sangam Kumar Shukla v. Union of India (UOI)

2005-01-06

TARUN AGARWALA

body2005
TARUN AGARWALA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners father died in service on 6. 4. 1998 while working on the post of an Auditor in the office of the Controller of Defence Accounts (Central Command ). It was alleged that a sum of Rs. 4 lacs was spent on treatment when his father was ill and that his father had taken various loans which had to be cleared. Since the family was facing acute financial hardship, the petitioners mother moved an application dated 21. 4. 1998 praying that her son, namely, the petitioner be appointed on compassionate ground. Subsequently, an application in the prescribed form was made by the petitioner in which he stated that he was unemployed and that there was an outstanding liability of Rs. 1,70,000. 00 which had to be cleared on account of the loans taken by his father. The petitioners application was rejected by an Order dated 22. 2. 2000 against which the petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for the quashing of the Order dated 22. 2. 2000 and for a mandamus commanding respondent No. 3 to reconsider the claim for his appointment on compassionate ground. ( 2 ) HEARD Sri S. K. Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramesh Singh, the learned Counsel for the respondents. ( 3 ) THE petitioners application has been rejected on the following grounds : (a) Total terminal benefits and monthly family pension is much more than the take home pay of the deceased. (b) The family possesses a house in which all the members of the deceased are residing. (c) The petitioners age is 35 years and is married. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has filed a Scheme relating to the appointment of dependants on compassionate ground. This Scheme has not been denied by the respondents. Clauses (5) and (8) of the said scheme are relevant for the purpose of this case which is quoted below : "5. Relaxations : (i) Age.--Maximum age limit may be relaxed wherever necessary but no relaxation is permissible in the minimum limit of 18 years. If the ward is below 18 years of age at the time of death of the Government servant and if he alone is available for employment, he should apply as soon as he attains 18 years. 8. Relaxations : (i) Age.--Maximum age limit may be relaxed wherever necessary but no relaxation is permissible in the minimum limit of 18 years. If the ward is below 18 years of age at the time of death of the Government servant and if he alone is available for employment, he should apply as soon as he attains 18 years. 8. Procedure of appointment.--Heads of offices will make the proposal and the Head of department/ministry will decide the appointment. Proposal will be made in the prescribed form containing all particulars of the candidate and the specific relaxation required in age, qualifications, etc. The Head of Department/ministry will take into account all the circumstances of the family, the benefits such as CGEIS payments, GPF/cpf, gratuity, etc. received, the existence of any earning member in the family on the one hand and on the other, size of the family, ages of children, essential needs, liabilities and the financial condition of the family. Financial benefits received need not necessarily be a ground for rejecting the proposal vis-a-vis other adverse factors urging acceptance. " ( 5 ) FROM a perusal of Clause (8) of the aforesaid Scheme, it is clear that the authority while deciding the application is required to take into consideration the terminal benefits received, but that by itself cannot be made a ground for rejecting the claim of the dependant. The clause clearly states, "financial benefits received need not necessarily be a ground for rejecting the proposal vis-a-vis other adverse factors urging acceptance. " There are other factors which requires consideration, namely the existence of any earning member of the family, size of the family, essential needs and liabilities of the family etc. In the present case, I find that the other factors as stipulated in Clause (8) of the Scheme has not been considered. The petitioner had categorically stated that the financial condition of the family after paying off the hospital expenses was not good. The deceased had taken loans which were required to be paid off. The petitioner had categorically stated that he was still unemployed and was dependant on his father. None of these aspects have been considered by the authority. In fact the Deputy Controller of defence Accounts submitted a report dated 24. 6. 1999 admitting that the petitioner was unemployed and that he and his family members were dependant on the family pension given to his mother. None of these aspects have been considered by the authority. In fact the Deputy Controller of defence Accounts submitted a report dated 24. 6. 1999 admitting that the petitioner was unemployed and that he and his family members were dependant on the family pension given to his mother. This is an extenuating factor which should have been considered and which was not considered by the authority while rejecting the petitioners application. ( 6 ) THE fact that the petitioner has turned 35 years of age could not be a ground for rejecting the application. Clause (5) of the Scheme clearly indicates that the age can be relaxed in exceptional cases. ( 7 ) THE respondents have annexed another Scheme for appointment of dependants on compassionate ground. This Scheme is dated 9. 10. 1998. The petitioners father died on 6. 4. 1998 and the application for employment was moved on 21. 4. 1998. Therefore, the Scheme dated 9. 10. 1998 is not applicable to the petitioners case. Even otherwise Clause 12 (e) of the Scheme annexed by the respondents is more or less the same as Clause (8) of the Scheme annexed by the petitioner. ( 8 ) CONSEQUENTLY, in view of the above, I find that the respondents have not considered the various factors which were required to be considered. Therefore, the impugned Order cannot be sustained. ( 9 ) IN the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned Order dated 22. 2. 2000 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent No. 3 to reconsider the petitioners application for appointment on compassionate ground in the light of the observation made above within two months from the date a certified copy of this judgment is produced before him. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no Order as to cost. . .